wayland implementation conformance

Kristian Høgsberg krh at bitplanet.net
Wed Jan 26 06:57:29 PST 2011

On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 8:22 AM, Tiago Vignatti
<tiago.vignatti at nokia.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> I hijacked this comment which Kristian made in the other email thread; my
> comments are inline.
> On 01/24/2011 09:30 PM, ext Kristian Høgsberg wrote:
>> Once of the things that X got right was the extension model.  Wayland
>> takes it one step further by making everything an extension: the only
>> thing that's fixed in the Wayland protocol is an interface for
>> discovering other interfaces.  If it turns out that we need to update
>> the input model, we have versioning built in for incremental updates,
>> and we can add an entire new model if we need to start from scratch.
> So what defines exactly a Wayland implementation which is conformant with
> the protocol then?
> Let's say I don't care about drm_interface and my implementation works okay
> without it. Does my software is called Wayland then? Nevertheless, in this
> case, I won't be able to connect the same clients from such implementation
> on some other Wayland server that relies on DRM. So if we target
> interoperability between clients and server, then I guess we will want to
> define hardly a few interfaces.

That's a good question.  My intention is to have wayland.xml be the
official interfaces, but you're right that the drm interface is
specific to the Linux drm driver model and maybe that should be split
out into its own file.  Additionally, it would make sense to abstract
out the wl_buffer creation into a library that server and client can
link to so that not every toolkit and application that use the wayland
protocol directly will have to know about every driver specific
interface for creating and sharing buffers.


More information about the wayland-devel mailing list